The most expensive fire department in the country
We're number 1! Oh, wait, that's not something to be proud of, is it?
Recent comments
- I had no choice
18 min 58 sec ago - Hmm ....
21 min 28 sec ago - Blue?
25 min 40 sec ago - Yeah Token!!
33 min 23 sec ago - New tracker page
57 min 15 sec ago - Youse-ability
58 min 34 sec ago - My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
1 hour 15 min ago - Idiocy
1 hour 41 min ago - Lower Mills
2 hours 23 min ago - we've already built the
2 hours 30 min ago
So then why...
If they are the most expensive, then why are they always whining about Menino not giving them enough. I don't understand.
Interesting
I realize that Boston's FD suffers from the same sort of lack of management as the rest of the area, but notice that the second most expensive fire department is SFO ... could it be the excessive cost of living that drives the cost of firefighter pay?
Where's the actual study?...
Where's the actual study that people can read the study itself?... Who are the actual people who did the study?... What's the background of the actual people who did the study?... What are the qualifications of the actual people who did the study?...
pretty standard reporting
The Globe article may be short on details behind the study, but in all fairness it's unusual for a piece like this to go into the backgrounds and qualifications of those who conducted it. Furthermore, the study may be at a stage where it's not yet officially public, though presumably someone could FOIA it from the City of Columbus.
If I was with the Boston firefighters union, I'd be on the phone to counterparts in Columbus to see what's up with this. As the Globe piece suggest, this has labor negotiations written all over it.
Yikes.
There are some seriously disturbing facts in that article along with yet another moronic quote from Ed Kelly.
There are firefighter "mechanics" being paid an *AVERAGE* of $134,000/yr?? What are these guys, the AIG of the fire department?? They do such great work worthy of such outrageous compensation that their fellow jake died crashing into a building on faulty brakes...
Then what does the mayor do? Hires actual mechanics! Bravo, Mumbles...what? Wait a minute, he hired them to work along side of the firefighter "mechanics" instead of replace them?!
We have guys on payroll who maintain 200 year old fireboxes instead of replacing them with new technology?? If you told me we still had a bucket brigade on the public dole, I'd probably believe it about now. This is seriously disgraceful.
Just a minute
Although I realize most people will read the report and form their own opinion about it, I want one thing made clear here.
This number they came up with ($452 per capita)
included EMS, which, in Boston, is a SEPARATE ENTITY. Boston EMS is not part of the Boston Fire Department.
Therefore, if you removed Boston EMS's budget from that equation, the cost per capita for fire protection would be much less.
Did this title of this report read "Boston spends most on Fire and EMS"? No, it didn't. It says "Boston spends most per capita on firefighters in US," and then, in the first paragraph, says
"...spends more per capita on fire and emergency medical services than any other large US city, paying the equivalent of $452 per resident annually"
Therefore, that $452 INCLUDES EMS, and is not just for firefighters.
This is another example of how, with a flashy headline and some numbers that have no backup, the media can make the public believe anything.
Typical.
Just another minute
Your complaint is only valid if the other cities being compared did not include EMS services in their cost figures, no matter how it is administratively handled in that city.
If FD costs were reported separate for the other cities, you are correct that the honest comparison is to separate them for Boston as well. If figures for other cities inlcuded EMS because their EMS services are not separated from FD services, then Boston should also include EMS for a truly unbiased comparison.
You are complaining it is an apples + oranges to apples comparison. Explain how it is an apples to apples comparison (rather than an apples to orangapple comparison) if we count it up your way?
No, you're wrong
See below
No, you're wrong
You're wrong, SwirlyGrrl. That is not my complaint.
My complaint is that the article, as usual, was skewed to make it seems as if the fire department is the main culprit here, which it is not.
In those other cities, EMS was included, since fire and EMS are combined entities.
In Boston, the fire and EMS are not combined, so it should not include the numbers for EMS and then have the title state "Firefighters," and not "Fire and EMS."
We were unfairly made to look bad, again. That is my complaint.
You think the title makes jakes look bad?!
Congratulations. You're trying to put out a house fire by peeing on the front steps.
What?
What does that even mean? The title doesn't make "jakes" (not even mentioned) look bad. It makes the entire fire department look bad. It's a skewed report. Period.
Once More with Logic
Your complaint: Boston figures added in EMS
My reply: that is appropriate when comparing to cities that have combined services
Your retort: you are wrong - they should just compare the firefighting only cost to everyone else's combined services or it is just sensationalizing things!
My reply: it isn't a valid comparison if they do not compare the costs on the same basis. You cannot compare the firefighting-only costs in Boston to the fire + ems costs and then say "see, not so bad". To get a valid comparison, you need to create an emergency services variable that is equally enumerated for each city.
You are the one that is trying to skew things here, because you want us to compare the firefighting only costs in Boston to the combined services costs in other cities. The simple fact is that Boston is paying a lot more for these services than other cities and we know that ONLY when we make valid comparisons. Further examination is needed to see what piece of that is bloated - but given that trained firefighters are paid more than trained mechanics to do a job they were not trained for is one hint. The high cost of living in Boston is another hint - but the high cost of living in San Francisco as a comparison city still points to cost issues being out of line in Boston.
Welcome to Best Practices - where cities compare notes and look for the best way to handle things. Your extreme reaction and complete misunderstanding of how to handle the most basic data comparisons speaks to the hard times this city will have to weather before the larger culture gets it and moves into the 21st century.
No, I'm not
I'm not trying to skew anything here, SwirlyGrrl.
I understand EMS and fire was combined in the report to make an even comparison.
The point I've
madebeen trying to make, is that these other departments operate on one budget. Combining two departments into one, and having one budget, saves money. That is simple economics.Having two separate departments is more costly, since you have to pay separately for everything.
The City of Boston must pay for separate EMS and fire stations; separate maintenance; separate civilian staff...etc etc. If Boston HAD a combined department, the numbers would probably not be so high. The report didn't mention that though, correct?
These cities have separate divisions in one department. That costs less to operate. Boston EMS and Boston Fire have not combined for many reasons. However, those reasons are not the fault (or decision) of the fire department; they fall on the City of Boston.
The report didn't mention any of this, correct? (my other point). It simply said, in a nut shell "the fire department and EMS cost more to operate in Boston." Is that a skew? Or is that fact from reading the report?
I'm not trying to skew anything. I'm providing a different point of view. The numbers don't lie, by comparing two UNLIKE things (and they are unlike, since TWO departments are involved) makes things look a little different, doesn't it?
Combining Variables
You have a small point, but adjusting for the overlapping administrative expense doesn't really buy much here.
Most cities have combined their departments to save administrative money. Boston hasn't. Perhaps that is one way to save some money.
Even then, a "principal components" analysis of the EMS adminsitrative costs and the FD administrative costs would not likely adjust the total cost by as much as you might think. While having a separate EMS does mean more administrative costs than not having a separate EMS, combining the two in Boston would still raise the administrative costs of the combined service over the administrative costs of the fire department alone.
Lets look at it this way (and I'm pulling these percentages out of my rump here, I'll admit) for the sake of illustration. Say that 15% of the cost of EMS is administrative. If you wanted to adjust for this added overhead to compare to cities with combined departments, you would not discount that entire 15%. Adding EMS to FD would add administrative costs to the FD. To get what you think is a valid comparison, you would need to add the principal component of EMS overhead - likely about 7.5% in this case - to the FD cost and the EMS service cost to get the true comparative value. That means that combining the departments might save 7.5% of the EMS cost - and Boston still comes out on top.
Yes, I know these figures are a wild flying guess - the principles, however, hold fast. You don't save enough when adjusting for the added overhead of EMS to get Boston's figures into anything resembling San Francisco figures. That is still a cause for analysis of expenses in the system (but not necessarily cuts to the system - there are issues of cost of living and antiquated geography). Then again, these sorts of analyses should be ongoing and systematic in any public agency IMHO. This is a prime example of why they should be systematic and ongoing, and how far this state has to go with the basics of modern municipal and public sector management.
Quality of service
In addition to SwirlyGrrl's well-put points about analyzing expenses, is quality of service.
Responsible decisions involve not only how much it costs, but what you're getting for your dollars.
Plus, especially in this economy, there are considerations about jobs, politics, etc.
What's your point?
Unless you're contention is that Boston EMS is financially bloated more than a three week old beached whale carcass and drags the fire department's lean mean budget down in the numbers, then it doesn't matter that they glued the two together.
All of the compared numbers are fire PLUS EMS. It's not like they added in EMS numbers just for Boston. The next highest cost per capita city, San Fran, does fire AND EMS for 30% LESS per capita than Boston. We have more firefighters per square mile than anywhere else (not fire plus EMS). So, unless you think that Boston EMS is costing so insanely much more than any other city surveyed, then the conclusion remains the same.
Come on now, Red, talk about the actual *facts* in the article. Do you *really* think a "mechanic" firefighter should be making $134,000 while simultaneously failing to keep the system's trucks maintained? Do you really think we need to spend $2.5 Million a year for an entire division dedicated to maintaining 200 year old fireboxes instead of updating the hardware?
How does it not matter?
How does it not matter that EMS is included, Kaz?
If you took EMS's budget away, the number would fall. Way down. Period. How does that not matter?
How is it fair to include EMS's budget with ours when it comes to protection, when we're separate? Perhaps the other cities are lower because it costs less to operate one department instead of two. I'm sure, if you wanted to crunch the numbers, that if you combined Boston Fire and Boston EMS, the number would be lower anyways, for many reasons. How can you compare cities that have combined EMS with a city that does not? The numbers will obviously be higher since you're including the numbers for two departments, not a single one as those other cities are. Did the report mention that? No. No mention was made the Boston EMS is a completely separate department, while most of these other cities in the report are all combined. One department, one cost. Two departments, higher cost. Simple mathematics. However, why was that not mentioned?
I'm not going to comment on $134,000 for maintenance because I do not work in that division.
However, I say this on the fire boxes. Everyone always wants to get rid of them, but they operate on a power supply that CANNOT be interrupted, and have been around since 1852 for a reason. They work. Always. If one firebox can save one life (or multiple), then should we get rid of them? (And yes, they have been used to report fires, as recently as February 2009).
If you took EMS budgets out of the other cities ...
If you took out the EMS budget from the figures for other cities, their numbers would also drop, and Boston's value would STILL stand out at the top as an outlier value.
In other words, Boston is still paying way more for emergency services than cities, and it is paying a lot more for firefighting than other cities.
You want us to compare the firefighting-only budget of Boston with the combined emergency response services budgets of other cities because that makes you feel better and you think it looks better. The problem is that it is not a valid comparison.
Instead of disputing the figures on invalid grounds, we need to ask some hard questions about where all that money is going. One could instead argue that Boston needs that many firefighters and firehouses because of its ancient road layout. Or one could argue that specialized units are needed for various reasons peculiar to Boston. But when the public sees things like this, and remembers that truck barreling off Mission Hill, there are some hard questions to be asked about why that money doesn't seem to be buying safety for the jakes and the public.
You're right about one thing
I'm not sure how you can be absolutely sure when you say that Boston would "STILL" be on top if you took away EMS budgets from other cities. Did you figure the numbers out?
However, you are right when you say there are some hard questions to be asked about why money isn't being spent on our safety and equipment.....Do you see any ambulances or police cars from 1984 operating around the City of Boston? I ask that because our oldest truck currently in service is from that year...
I've given my opinions, and you've given yours. You see the report the way you want to see it, and I see it my way. The report didn't mention EMS as being separate, or separate operating costs, it simply said the fire department costs more. I don't know how you can honestly say that that is a fair and accurate report.
The way you see it vs Reality
That's the problem. The "I see it my way" era of nonsense needs to end. There are times when opinions are opinions and everyone's is valid. This is not one of those times. You don't understand the math but you want to act as if your implausible scenario is correct.
How do we know that comparing fire-department-only budgets would still lead to Boston being the most expensive per capita? Because the difference between #1 Boston and #2 San Francisco is so large. Let's put some similar but more relatable numbers as an example:
Boston Fire + Boston EMS = 100
San Fran Fire/EMS = 70
If we assume that SFFD costs the same as BFD at, say, 50, then:
Boston Fire = 50, Boston EMS = 50
San Fran Fire = 50, San Fran EMS = 20
No? How about both fire departments cost 30 instead (damn those expensive EMS!):
Boston Fire = 30, Boston EMS = 70
San Fran Fire = 30, San Fran EMS = 40
You can change how much the fire departments cost, but basically, for the two fire departments to equal the same amount of money per capita (arguing that Boston's fire department is not bloated in comparison) then Boston EMS would have to cost about double that of San Francisco, and that's just the *next* most expensive Fire & EMS per capita city! Are you really going to argue that Boston Fire is being unfairly targetted...which means that Boston EMS is charging nearly double per taxpayer than its next closest city by comparison?? Would you really throw the EMS under the fire truck like that?
My numbers are taken straight from the study. San Fran's per person total cost is about 70% that of Boston's per person total cost. The large difference between Boston and the rest of the nation for these costs are not driven by the EMS costs being included. Your complaint is not valid no matter how you choose to "see it".
Not choosing to see my point
The fact of the matter is, Kaz, you chose to run the numbers, which I did not, so you are right in that aspect. Yes, Boston costs more to run fire and ems than other cities. You are right. Are you happy to hear that?
But that still doesn't change the fact that the story is titled about the fire department, when EMS is also involved. The story simply read "Boston spends more per capita on Firefighters among US cities."
Later the story says "..spends more per capita on fire and emergency medical services..."
So, therefore, EMS is a part of this equation. But that is simply mentioned once, and not in the title.
It is obvious that no matter what rebuttal I come up with, you are going to come back with numbers and figures and call my opinion nonsense, as you already have. You should be proud of that.
My opinion was NOT on the validity of the story or the numbers. It was on the fact that, even though EMS's budget is a part of all this, the Globe CHOSE not to mention that anything except the fact that we are (when you do the numbers out) greedy, money grubbing SOB's.
I'm sure you also believed the numbers when Andy Hiller "revealed" on Channel 7 that the average firefighter makes $91,000+ a year (an inaccurate number that comes from adding up everybody's salary, from probationary firefighters to the Chief of Department, and averaging it out). No firefighter I know personally made $91,000 last year (myself included). Is the city hiding that money from us? However, that's what was reported, and that is what is believed.
THAT was my point, and my complaint about this IS valid, no matter what way YOU choose to see it. My opinion is as valid as anybody else's on here, and what is nonsense is you telling me otherwise.
The numbers are accurate here, and I'm not denying that. However, the story on Channel 7 simply proves that they can be skewed, mangled, and reported in any way to make someone look bad, good, or otherwise, and a flashy headline tops it off.
The Larger Point
Public agencies have to justify the money they spend to the public.
Not just in Boston - everywhere. This lack of accountability to the public cuts both ways - there may be reasons that Boston spends so much on fire protection - but the public isn't seeing it here and the media has every right to question how the public money is spent.
There may be some damn good reasons that firefighters are in charge of maintenance - like, maybe it is cheaper to have injury sidelined veterans doing these jobs because it delays their entry to the pension system, even if that pension savings doesn't show on the main books. However, the people doing those jobs - be they jakes or mechanics - still have to be properly trained for their jobs and able to institute maintenance systems that ensure that trucks don't kill firefighters or citizens. The costs may also result from antiquated legal requirements that the BFD has no direct control over - and we won't know that unless we ask questions.
The biggest issue that I see with public agencies in Boston and in Massachusetts in general is the lack of even internal accountability for how they function. This isn't just a BFD problem, it is a cultural problem. It isn't just the money, either - it is the safety of the citizens and the firefighters. Reactive reinterpretation of the statistics doesn't change the basic problems here - lots of money is spent, a firefighter recently died on a runaway truck, there are departments that nobody understands, etc. Like it or not, the public has a duty to ask WHY?
I don't think so
Right sed - as you can see from my other post - EMS is a tiny fraction of the $271 million in the study (less than 10%). Also - if you go to the Boston herald's site for salaries and sort through the BFD you will find that about 500 people or about 30% of the department (mostly firefighters -although includes the commissioner and some brass) made over $100k last year. The $91k per FF is probably about accurate.
Details not included
One thing you have to understand about those salaries, Steve, is the paid details. Those salaries for higher paid firefighters include paid details, which are not paid for by the city OR the taxpayers.
If a firefighter (or police officer) does a paid detail, it is paid for by the company who requested it. Construction companies and other companies who request a detail pay the city for the service, who in turn pays it to whoever did the detail. Even if the numbers "average out" to $91k, is it not in reality what the average firefighter makes. That simple number alone makes it seem as if firefighters make more, when those paid details aren't even paid for by the taxpayers.
So, even for the 500 or so who did make over $100,000, I can tell you for a fact that a majority of it is NOT coming out of the taxpayer's pocket, like the news would make you believe. No firefighter's base salary in the City of Boston is over (or anywhere near) $90,000. It only appears that way for those choosing to do enough paid details to bring it that high (again, NOT on the taxpayer's dime).
Ultimate cost of details
I don't have a problem with the compensation for firefighters, but, if we're going to say details are free to the taxpayer, I think we need to be clear about what exactly that means.
If a small business runs an event and is required to have a detail, isn't that cost passed on to the attendees? Or, if not passed on, borne by the Boston-based business owner, who happens to be a citizen?
If a construction company is required to have a detail, isn't that cost passed on to whoever employed the construction company, such as a local business, or a company considering the cost of moving into or expanding in Boston?
And are there situations in which a company is required to have detail while contracting for the city?
Perhaps there are other examples, or these aren't particularly good examples. I'm not familiar with fire details. I'm asking for more information about who ultimately pays for fire details.
Details are paid for by us
Rightsedfred:
When a detail is added to utility work, we the taxpayers and ratepayers pay. When the city of Boston has a detail when they redo a street, we the taxpayers pay.
And if you think that combining EMS and firefighters would save money, then propose it. I bet if the city did your union would cry foul if any jobs (and therefore costs) were eliminated. So it is fair to add them together because the BFD has no problem with redundancy if it bloats the union numbers.
Prove us wrong, and get the BFD to propose to the city to combine the two and save money by eliminating positions as you stated.
Two final clarifications
If your trouble is now with the title of the article and not the numbers, then I'll reiterate my earlier point about peeing on the front stoop to stop the whole house from burning down. The problem is that the paper shouldn't even be able to write an article like this to attach a poor title to it, because we shouldn't be paying so much for fire and EMS from the start. But we do and this article shows the latest information that explains as much. *That* is where we need to target our anger and focus our resolve. You might be right to think the headline is slanted, but getting mad about the headline isn't productive to keeping similar headlines from appearing again in the future.
It'd be nice to see firemen get as mad as you seem on this issue, but instead get mad about being left as the low-hanging fruit for the newspaper to pick off as examples of government excess. Make your union and department leaders improve the situation so that these headlines are impossible to write and the slanted headlines will target someone else who becomes the easier target. Make them streamline the department, trim some of their own largess, and find ways to improve the department's bottom line instead of continuing to greedily grab at every dollar possible and fight the government at absolutely every turn when it's determined that they've grabbed one dollar too many. By "looking out for you", they've left you all out to dry now. They've made it *way* too easy for the paper to let you all look like greedy, conniving resource hogs. If you're not getting new trucks and equipment, then thanks to this study we can now be sure that it's not because you're not getting more money than any other large city in the country. I think it's time to turn to your union and department heads and ask just where the $400+ per taxpayer is going.
Oh, right, and the second clarification: I don't listen to 1 stupid-ass thing that tool Andy Hiller ever says.
Actual numbers
Kaz - according to the city's budget site, the operating budget for the FD is about $160 million. The EMS budget is $12 million. The study appears to have added in capital budget, external funds, health care and retiree costs bringing the total to about $271 million for fire and EMS. Not sure how they do this - but the operating budget for EMS is less than $30,000 per employee, the FD is almost $100,000. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of the FD - but as I've said here and elsewhere - there's only so much blood in a stone.
Links to budget pages
Here's the link to boston public health commission and public safety budgets
EMS has 444 employees and a $12 million budget
http://www.cityofboston.gov/TridionImages/11%20Pub...
BFD has 1763 employees and a budget of $161 million.
http://www.cityofboston.gov/TridionImages/04%20Pub...
Hats off to the study
Actually - hats off to whoever did this study - they seem to have waded through the fact that health care and retirement benefits are not included in the city's budget numbers and added them back in to get a true picture of the cost of operating the FD. They appear to have taken the operating budgets and added in capital expenditures, health care, pensions and other hard to find items.
As someone that has looked at other city's budgets, this is a gargantuan task to figure out what is/isn't/should/shouldn't be included to get to apples to apples. Bottom line - no matter how you look at it - Boston is off the charts and cuts/freezes are in order - even to get to SFO levels, much less national norms even for other high-cost cities.
Not to mention
So how's that crackdown on firefighters calling in sick on holidays? (So other firefighters have to be paid overtime to cover)
Here's a copy of the Columbus report
Hot off the press. It's a 2.5M PDF file, roughly 95% is of which is of no interest whatsoever to anybody who doesn't care about municipal finances in Columbus, Ohio. The emergency comparison starts on page 90.
Via Daily Worcesteria, which says Worcester comes out looking pretty good (at least, on this specific criterion).
Oops, BFD is actually the second most expensive
The people in Columbus said they erroneously added a '1' in front of the $11 million total cost of fire and EMS, thus skewing the total by $100 million.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/200...
Wow, hell of an error
So, my numbers above were more prophetic than first thought. It *would* have to be a huge overage by the EMS to make us far and above San Francisco's total if both fire departments cost about the same. Who woulda figured that the huge overage by the EMS was an accounting error? Ha!
So, we're back to being one of the most expensive fire and EMS services per capita as opposed to the Yankees of Fire and EMS. Going back to my original post, then, why can't we get more efficient and actually be in the middle of the pack and also free up money that could be going to new equipment and improved technology?